The Impulse Society: America in the Age of Instant Gratification

By Paul Roberts

It's something most of us have sensed for years-the rise of a world defined only by “mine” and “now.” A world where business shamelessly seeks the fastest reward, regardless of the long-term social consequences; where political leaders reflexively choose short-term fixes over broad, sustainable social progress; where individuals feel increasingly exploited by a marketplace obsessed with our private cravings yet oblivious to our spiritual well-being or the larger needs of our families and communities.

At the heart of The Impulse Society is an urgent, powerful story: how the pursuit of short-term self-gratification, once scorned as a sign of personal weakness, became the default principle not only for individuals, but for all sectors of our society. Drawing on the latest research in economics, psychology, political philosophy, and business management, Paul Roberts shows how a potent combination of rapidly advancing technologies, corrupted ideologies, and bottom-line business ethics has pushed us across a threshold to an unprecedented state: a virtual merging of the market and the self. The result is a socioeconomic system ruled by impulse, by the reflexive, id-like drive for the largest, quickest, most “efficient” reward, without regard for long-term costs to ourselves or to broader society.

More than thirty years ago, Christopher Lasch hinted at this bleak world in his landmark book, The Culture of Narcissism. In The Impulse Society, Roberts shows how that self-destructive pattern has grown so pervasive that anxiety and emptiness are becoming embedded in our national character. Yet it is in this unease that Roberts finds clear signs of change-and broad revolt as millions of Americans try step off the self-defeating treadmill of gratification and restore a sense of balance. Fresh, vital, and free of ideological, right-wing/left-wing formulations, The Impulse Society shows the way back to a world of real and lasting good.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Bloomsbury USA
• Release date: Sep 2, 2014
• ISBN: 9781608198184

Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts specialises and has worked extensively in the field of project, programme and change management with organisations such as British Airways, ComputaCenter, The Economist, HBOS, Ministry of Defence, Pfizer, Inland Revenue, Royal Mail, Somerfield and Wilco.

Book preview

Author

Introduction

A half hour east of Seattle, not far from the headquarters of Microsoft, Amazon, and other pillars of the digital age, a winding country road brings a visitor to reSTART, the nation’s first rehab for technology addicts and a window onto the wider world to come. Most of the patients here are trying to quit Internet gaming, which they once played so obsessively that careers, relationships, and prospects for happiness were in shambles. For the outsider, the addiction can be incomprehensible. But as you hear the patients’ stories, the appeal comes into focus. In a living room overlooking a sward of lawn, twenty-nine-year-old Brett Walker talks about his time in World of Warcraft, a popular online role-playing game where participants become warriors in a steampunk medieval world. For four years, even as his real life collapsed, Walker enjoyed a near-perfect online existence, with virtually unlimited power and status akin to that of a Mafia boss crossed with a rock star. I could do whatever I wanted, go where I wanted, Walker tells me with a mixture of pride and self-mockery. The world was my oyster.

Walker appreciates the irony here. His endless hours as an online superhero left him physically weak, financially destitute, and so socially isolated he could barely hold a face-to-face conversation. There may also have been deeper effects. Studies suggest that heavy online gaming actually alters brain structures involved in decision making and self-control, much as drug and alcohol use does. Emotional development can be delayed or derailed, leaving the player with a sense of self that is incomplete, fragile, and socially disengaged—more id than superego. Or as Hilarie Cash, reSTART cofounder and an expert in online addiction, told me, We end up being controlled by our impulses.

Which, for gaming addicts, means being even more susceptible to the complex charms of the online world. Gaming companies want to keep players playing as long as possible—the more you play, the more likely you’ll upgrade to the next version. To this end, game designers have created sophisticated data feedback systems that tie players to an upgrade treadmill. As players move through these virtual worlds, the data they generate is captured and used to make subsequent game iterations even more immersive. (World of Warcraft, for instance, releases periodic upgrades, or patches, with new weapons and skills that players must have to retain their godlike status.) As a result, players play more, and generate still more data, which leads to even more immersive iterations, and so on. The result is a perpetual-motion machine, driven by companies’ hunger for revenues, but also by players’ insatiable appetite for self-expression. Until the day he quit, Walker never once declined the chance to level up, but instead consumed each new increment of power as soon as it was offered—even as it sapped his power in real life.

On the surface, the tale of someone like Brett Walker may not seem relevant to those of us who don’t spend our days waging virtual war. But the truth is that these digital narratives center on a dilemma that every citizen in postindustrial society will eventually confront: namely, how to cope with a socioeconomic system that is almost too good at giving us what we want. I don’t just mean the way smartphones and search engines and Netflix and Amazon now anticipate our preferences. I mean how the entire edifice of the consumer economy has reoriented itself around our personal agendas, self-images, and inner fantasies. In North America and the United Kingdom, and to lesser degrees in Europe and Japan, it is now completely normal to demand a personally customized life. We fine-tune our moods with pharmaceuticals and classic rock. Craft our meals around our allergies and ideologies. Customize our bodies with cross training, with ink and metal, with surgery and wearable technologies. We can choose a vehicle to express our hipness or hostility. We can move to a neighborhood that matches our social values, find a news outlet that mirrors our politics, create a social network that likes everything we say or post. With each transaction and upgrade, each choice and click, life moves closer to us, and the world becomes our world.

And yet . . . one needn’t be a gaming addict to recognize that the world we’re so busily refashioning in our own image has some serious problems. Certainly, our march from one level of gratification to the next has cost us—most recently in a real estate-and-credit binge that nearly sunk the global economy. But the problem here isn’t simply one of overindulgence. Even as the economy slowly recovers, many of us still feel out of balance and unsteady—as if our quest for constant, seamless self-expression has become so advanced and pervasive that it is undermining the essential structures of everyday life. In everything from eating and socializing to marriage and parenting to politics, the norms and expectations of our self-centered culture are making it steadily harder to behave in civic, social ways. We struggle to make, or keep, long-term commitments. We find it harder to engage with, or even tolerate, people or ideas that don’t relate directly and immediately to us. Empathy weakens, and with it, our faith in the idea, essential to a working democracy, that we have anything in common.

Our unease isn’t new, exactly. Some forty years ago, social critics such as Daniel Bell, Christopher Lasch, and Tom Wolfe warned that our growing self-absorption was steamrollering the idealism and aspirations of the postwar era. The logic of individualism, argued Lasch in his 1978 polemic, The Culture of Narcissism, had transformed daily life into a brutal social competition, a Hobbesian war of all against all, that was sapping our days of meaning or joy. Today, one could argue that the pessimists weren’t pessimistic enough. They couldn’t have imagined how self-absorption and full-blown narcissism would become so inseparable from mainstream culture. Nor would they have guessed the degree to which the selfish reflexes of the individual would become the reflexes of an entire society. Government, the media, academia, and especially business—the very institutions that once helped to temper the individual pursuit of quick, self-serving rewards are themselves increasingly engaged in the same pursuit. In sector after sector, at scales small and large, we are becoming a society that wants it now, regardless of the consequences. We are becoming an Impulse Society.

What we’re describing here goes beyond a wayward consumer culture. Under our escalating drive for quick returns, our whole socioeconomic system is turning on itself. Our traditions of collective action and personal commitment are fraying. Our economy struggles to generate the kind of long-term, broadly based prosperity it once provided—and worse, now seems locked in an intensifying cycle of overshoot and collapse. Most alarmingly, our political institutions, which not so long ago could mobilize resources and people to make real progress, now shy away from complex, long-term challenges such as education reform or resource depletion—or the financial reforms needed to prevent the next meltdown. Consider this one fact: the worst recession in three-quarters of a century should have served as a society-wide reset, a chance to rethink a socioeconomic model based on automatic upgrades and short-term gains. Instead, we’ve continued to focus our economic energies, entrepreneurial talents, and innovation on getting the biggest returns in the shortest time possible. Worse, we’ve done so despite the fact that, thanks to our failing economic model, more and more of us can no longer afford to keep up with the treadmill of ever-faster gratification—a frustration not unconnected to the strains of angry populism now paralyzing our politics.

How did we get to this point? How did entire societies that once celebrated their prudence, unity, and concern for the future become so impulsive, self-centered, and shortsighted? And how will these changes play out for us, as people and as a people, in the years and decades ahead? These questions are at the heart of The Impulse Society.

On one level, this is a deeply personal story. Like many first-worlders, I’ve spent much of my life in a not-always-successful effort to cope with an economic system that routinely mistakes want for need. For that reason, a lot of my initial research focused on the almost comic mismatch between an individual adapted for scarcity and an economic system wired for abundance. But the real story here wasn’t merely about mischievous marketers or gullible consumers; it was about a much larger historic shift in the essential and complicated relationship between the individual and our entire socioeconomic system. It’s clear, for example, that the selfishness of today’s culture wasn’t nearly so apparent in the postwar period—and it’s fair to argue that our rising self-centeredness stems, at least in part, from the weakening of institutions, such as religion and family, that once tempered self-absorption. But there is a more strictly economic narrative here as well. It’s hardly coincidental that the famous selflessness of the postwar era began to crumble with the economic upheavals of the 1970s. I mean the recessions, which made us more self-preserving and insecure—but also the successes: the explosion of new economic ideas and technologies that enabled the economy to, in effect, satisfy our desires more rapidly and efficiently and personally—so much so that we often have difficulty knowing where we stop and the market begins. In other words, what we’re experiencing now isn’t simply the normal retrenchment that follows an economic downturn; rather, we are in the midst of an invasion—the end stages in an accelerating drive by the marketplace to break down all barriers between itself and us. Simply put, the marketplace and the self, our economy and our psychology, are merging in ways we’ve never before experienced.

If we could step back a century, before the rise of the consumer economy, we would be struck not only by the lack of affluence and technology, but also by the distance between ourselves and our economy, the separation of our economic and emotional lives. It isn’t that people were any less wrapped up in economic activities. The difference, rather, lay in where, psychically speaking, the majority of that activity took place. A century ago, most economic activity occurred in our outer lives—that is, in the physical world of production. We made things: we farmed, crafted, cobbled, nailed, baked, brined, brewed. We created tangible goods and services whose value was reasonably objective and quantifiable, determined not only by the marketplace but by the measurable needs and requirements of our physical, outer lives. Today the situation is almost reversed. Although our economy is vastly larger, most economic activity (70 percent in the United States) centers on consumption. Much of that consumption is discretionary and is thus driven not by need, but by the intangible criteria of our inner worlds: our aspirations and hopes, our identities and secret cravings, our anxieties and our boredom. And as these inner worlds have come to play a larger role in the economy—and more particularly, as company profits have come to depend on our ephemeral (but conveniently endless) appetites—the entire marketplace has become more attuned to the mechanics of the self. Bit by bit, product by product, the marketplace has drawn closer to the self. Some would even argue that, since the computer revolution of the 1970s, the consumer marketplace has effectively moved inside the self, and is now inseparable from not only our desires and decisions, but also our very identities.

In the usual telling, this merger of market and self was a hostile takeover—as if we’d all still be in the idyll of a producer economy were it not for decades of marketing and Mad Men manipulation. But the merger of market and self was always on the horizon. Once the consumer became the center of economic activity and corporate profitability, the die was cast. The market would, inexorably and naturally, reorient its vast structures and processes around the self, because only the bottomless appetites of the self could contain all the output of a maturing industrial capitalist economy, which can never stop growing. And just as inevitably, the self would welcome the market’s advances, because without that relentless output, our inner lives wouldn’t have access to all these fantastic, endlessly shifting and diverting powers of self-expression. It was the original win-win.

We can argue about the ultimate desirability of this merger—about the morality and sustainability of it, and whether another sort of relationship between the market and the self might be preferable or even possible. But the merger itself was destiny. Today the self-centeredness of our socioeconomic system is so complete and normalized that it has redefined the meaning of progress. It shapes our expectations, controls how we measure success and failure. It guides the allocation of resources and talent and, especially, determines how we exploit our massive capacity for innovation: it is surely telling that the company with the most market value and brand recognition, Apple, has achieved that success by positioning itself at the very center of the me-centered economy. And none of these trends shows any signs of slowing. To the contrary, without a serious course correction, the entire merger will only accelerate as new technologies let the market gratify ever-more esoteric appetites on a nearly continuous basis. Market and self are becoming one.

But is this such a bad thing? Surely, if we were to bring someone from the 1890s, or even the 1970s, to the present moment, he would struggle to see the crisis in a socioeconomic system that wants nothing more than to please. In fact, there is no shortage of experts today who suggest that the proper response to all this efficient gratification is to relax and enjoy it. Not only is a society shaped by our impulses the very manifestation of freedom; but an economy shaped by our desires is the best possible economy precisely because it is desire-shaped. As Adam Smith argued more than two centuries ago, when individuals freely pursue their own self-interests—presumably, even their most trivial desires—the aggregate effect is an economy that most efficiently and naturally delivers the most benefits to the greatest majority. (In Smith’s famous phrasing, by pursuing our own self-interests, it’s as if we are led by an invisible hand to promote an end that was no part of [our] intention.) And the truth is our self-centered economy delivers a lot of benefits. It generates a lot of wealth, a lot of innovation, and, perhaps most important, a lot of individual adaptability, which you and I can use to shape our lives, our feelings, and our very identities. For these unprecedented powers of self-creation, shouldn’t we be willing to tolerate periodic meltdowns, partisan politics, and a selfish, narcissistic culture?

Perhaps not. An economy reoriented to give us what we want, it turns out, isn’t the best for delivering what we need. The more efficient we have gotten at gratifying immediate individual desire, the worse we have become at meeting other, longer-term social necessities. Yes, our economy generates scads of wealth, but it is no longer the steady, broadly distributed wealth that once lifted all social classes. Yes, our economy cranks out a parade of astonishing personal goods (from smartphones to financial instruments to miraculous medical treatments), but it no longer produces enough of the public goods (roads and bridges, for example, or education or science, or preventative medicine or alternative energy) that are essential for long-term economic stability, and whose absence is already feeding back, negatively, into our economy and society. We can make great plasma screens and seat warmers and teeth whiteners and apps that will guide you, turn by turn, to the nearest edgy martini bar. But when it comes to, say, reforming the financial system, dealing with climate change, or fixing health care or some other large-scale problem out in the real world, we have little idea where to start.

We often explain this dilemma in terms of policy failures, and it is a failure. But it is a failure rooted in a marketplace that is now so married to the psychology of the consumer that it mirrors that psychology’s least attractive attributes—not least the tendency, wired in by evolution, to prize immediate rewards and ignore future costs. You can see this have-it-now reflex in the way our entire consumer culture treats immediate gratification as if it were life’s primary goal, to be pursued as efficiently and unapologetically as possible. But you can also see it among the institutions in charge of the consumer economy, not least the institutions of business. We may always have been a profit-maximizing species, but there was a time when profit was regarded as inseparable from broader social goals and obligations. Today, those obligations are treated increasingly as inefficiencies to be minimized or eliminated entirely with cost-cutting technologies and lean strategies. This intensifying emphasis on the bottom line helps explain the unprecedented level of corporate earnings, which have more than recovered from the Great Recession. But it also helps us understand the unprecedented insecurity of workers, communities, and other constituencies that once regarded the corporate world as a stabilizing anchor.

And it was an anchor—the source of much of our material progress. So we aren’t necessarily being antibusiness or antitechnology to be worried by the way business now reflexively applies technology to raise profits with almost no consideration for the broader consequences. Or to feel uneasy at the fact that more and more of our technological skills and resources—which once lifted all society and advanced very broad social goals (and which remain crucial to solving our looming challenges)—are now devoted to fields such as financial engineering, whose social costs are now painfully well known. It is instructive that both the United States and the United Kingdom, which once generated most of their profits in their manufacturing sectors, now get their biggest profits from the financial industry. Telling, too, that most of the excitement around Big Data comes, not from its potential to solve the very complex problems of our times (nor even its potential to be abused), but for the way it is already letting the marketplace move closer to the self, with more immersive games, more adaptive personal technologies—even, fittingly, eyeglasses that place the entire digital economy just centimeters from your brain.

This isn’t how an advanced society is supposed to work. Yet what else should we expect from a socioeconomic system that has come to take its marching orders from our fantasies and fears? More fundamentally, what else should we expect from a culture that now all but mocks the values of cooperation, patience, and self-sacrifice? A culture in which self-indulgence and self-absorption, far from being treated as character flaws to be remedied, are celebrated and legitimized as lifestyle choices and product categories. This is what a society based on the self actually looks like—and not the strong, assured, confident self that Americans once proudly extolled or of which Walt Whitman sang, but rather a self that has become corrupted, insecure, and deeply compromised.

The irony of the Impulse Society is that, for all the emphasis on pleasure and gratification, the main output seems to be anxiety. Most of us understand, if only at a gut level, that a culture geared for short-term self-interest is a disaster waiting to happen. We see the growing social risks of an economic system that generates more inequality each year—and of a political system too shortsighted and bought to do anything about it. And on a personal, emotional level, we are increasingly aware that the Impulse Society, despite its relentless prioritizing of self-interest, of I over we, is actually making it harder for each of us to be truly satisfied. The freedom to live as we wish is a marvelous privilege, but the harder we strive for self-gratification, the more we are reminded of the old truth—that to live only for the moment and the self is to fall far short of one’s potential.

Yet we’re hardly paralyzed. Brett Walker, the former digital junkie, saved himself by going clean—by breaking away from continuous gratifications of gaming economy long enough to discover that he was happier without that degree of self-indulgence. Perhaps we should take note. Like Walker, this society has let the expectation of narrowly self-serving gratification drive us into a social and economic crisis so deep we still haven’t recovered. But unlike Walker, we still haven’t broken free. To the contrary, our solution has been to resurrect the status quo and revive the same self-centered economy that caused us such grief in the first place—and will only do so again.

But we needn’t stick to that plan. Were we serious about interrupting our downward spiral, we would start by recognizing the social limits of immediate gratification and of an economic strategy that always prioritizes the largest, quickest, cheapest payoff. This isn’t to question the idea of efficiency—of exploiting technology and technique to get the biggest bang for our buck. Efficiency is what made our civilization possible, and we’ll need more and more of it as we navigate the crises of income inequality, ecological degradation, and resource scarcity that the Impulse Society has been unable to address effectively—or has simply made worse.But it is to criticize the ideology of efficiency—or the belief, sacred in contemporary politics and especially business, that the greatest output at the lowest cost should always be society’s aim. That dogma, though we credit it for our prosperity, is now destroying that prosperity. How can we mend the job market if we’re doing everything possible to eliminate labor? How can we build anything of real value when everything we make—every product and service, every achievement, experience, and emotional state—is by definition obsolete the moment we create it? Where under such a model of endless upgrades is there a place for tradition, or a sense of permanence, or a conception of individual commitment to the long term?

Here, I think, we find the story behind the increasing fragility of the self. Here, too, is the real reason our economic recovery has dragged on for the better part of a decade. What we’re trying to recover from isn’t just the collapse of an asset bubble or an episode of irrational exuberance. It’s the exhaustion of a socioeconomic program so focused on short-term goals, and so hostile to the notion of long-term investment, or commitment, or permanence, that it is becoming incapable of producing anything of durable social or economic value. In an era of ambitious emerging societies—such as China, Brazil, India, or Indonesia, which still value the making of things very much as we used to—this impulse toward the short term and the provisional may be a fatal flaw.

In the post–Cold War world, it is unfashionable to call for any alternative to capitalism, or even to imagine that such an alternative might exist. But shouldn’t we at least retain the prerogative to choose the sort of capitalism we want? Shouldn’t we be able to demand that our capitalism produce things of real value and be capable of sustaining a society that is equitable and deliberate? We are rightly skeptical of the heavy-handed top-down government style in places such as China, Brazil, India, and Indonesia. But these societies, at the very least, have tried to make their economies take them in specific directions, as opposed to simply following where the ideology of efficiency leads. More fundamentally, they have consciously defined economic success and wealth in explicitly social terms. One needn’t agree with those terms to recognize that our terms—the way we measure progress in much of the first world—is no longer sustainable. We badly need a new metric for economic success and wealth that goes beyond earnings per share.

So our solution to the Impulse Society begins with questions: Where do we want our economy to take us? What kind of wealth are we hoping to produce? How should we redefine wealth to include the values that sustain a society and can balance short- and long-term goals, such as education and energy and scientific research? Can we find a program that renders the economy more conscious of its social impacts? A program that inspires citizens to leave the mind-set of immediate gratification and narrow self-interest and recover a sense of long-term responsibility and permanent, stable selfhood?

Admittedly, in the current political culture, developing a program to balance these objectives seems flatly impossible. Witness our tortured efforts to reform health care, or to enact strategies that meaningfully address climate change. These failures, we’re told, reflect not just the complexity of the task, but also fundamentally irreconcilable differences in the way the right and the left understand the purpose of the market, the role of government, and the rights and responsibilities of the individual. In the politics of the Impulse Society, there is no middle ground.

But this idea of an insurmountable divide is itself a political contrivance. When I set out to understand the Impulse Society, I did so as an unapologetic liberal, deeply distrustful of laissez-faire economics and the reflexive leap for quick, efficient returns that is grinding entire economies and cultures into the dust. And yet, while my economic stance remains largely unchanged, the more closely I’ve looked at the social and cultural drivers behind the Impulse Society, the more I’ve found myself reaching conclusions that are distinctly conservative. The social elements that are most essential to maintaining a stable, sustainable society—among them, the emphasis on strong families and intact communities and an appreciation for personal virtues such as self-discipline—these are traditionally conservative objectives. What I ended up with is a political amalgam: an economy that has been rendered, through regulation and incentive, more sensitive to its social impacts, combined with a public that has been persuaded, even inspired, to look beyond narrow self-interest.

My own evolution toward a politically amalgamated approach is hardly unique—many of the social critiques of the past four decades have reached similarly hybridized conclusions. But it leads me to believe that the current divides—right versus left, free markets versus socialism, the all-powerful state versus the unfettered individual—represent not fundamental differences but false choices. These hardened positions are themselves impulsive: they are the result of political parties choosing the quick payoff of partisanship instead of committing to the longer-term political processes that once characterized industrial society—before our economic models and technological successes persuaded us that such behavior was inefficient. Yet that older, more farsighted political process isn’t extinct: despite the partisan extremism that has flourished under the Impulse Society, most of us remain somewhere in the middle—and more than ready for change.

And here, in the historical comparison, is my real source of optimism. As a society, we used to tackle large, complicated problems (world wars, economic depression, racial injustice), and we can do so again. In some respects, the challenge we face today is more difficult. But the alternative, the status quo, is no longer an option.

Part One

I Society

Chapter 1

More Better

It’s late on a Friday afternoon in the Apple Store in North Seattle and I’m sitting with a half dozen other middle-aged customers in a workshop for new iPhone owners. Late Friday afternoons were once a time for half-priced drinks and flirting, but buying personal technology now counts as leisure, and the store is so jammed that our instructor, Chip, a wispy twentysomething with hipster glasses and the quiet despair of a tour guide on an old folks’ bus trip,

Reviews for The Impulse Society

[dlmorrese · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Western society allows instant gratification of many of our basic needs. If we want food, we can get it NOW. Clothing? Housing? Gadgets? As long as you have the money, it's all available on a whim, and for basic things, most people have the money. If not, they have the credit, and therein lies a tale. I think the point of the argument in this book is that easy gratification of basic needs leads people to expect that all their needs and desires not only can but should be instantly met. This makes them more attuned to short-term over long-term goals, more selfish, less community minded, and far less willing to compromise. Although I thought the author's observations about U.S. politics and economics were accurate, I'm not convinced that the economic inequities and political divisiveness that now exist can be directly attributed to expectations resulting from advances in production and distribution of goods. Still, an interesting book with some good points.

[davidwineberg · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Paul Roberts hates the way Americans are. His book is a populist editorial excoriating various facets of American society, from the social to the political. Impulse Society tries to nail America for being me-centric and narcissistic, from people moving to cities where the politics suits theirs, to online gamers living their lives in cyberspace, and everything in between. This despite the fact the country was founded on those principles. It is a 260 page rant filled with rehashes of the financial meltdown, family breakdown, megacorporations out of control and community deficit. It feels like after dinner conversation, where everyone chimes in with a factoid or two, and agrees the state of society is poorly, not like the good ole days.I was unable to find anything new in Impulse Society. I was also in disagreement with the approach and reasoning, a lot of which is superficial and often taken out of context. The truth is this is old hat. Humans have always been selfish, self-centered and uncaring for anything but their own. The Tragedy of the Commons is as old as humankind, and it applies to everything we come in contact with. That we ignore the environment and our own kind for quick profit is no discovery.Earlier, we had to rely on others, to leverage the power of the tribe or village. Now we think we are wealthy enough to dispense with their support and build our little fortresses of solitude, while calling for the dismantlement of government. All for one and one for all might be fine for storytelling. In the real world, it’s grab what you can while you can, because if you don’t, someone else will and probably is, right now. Conservative historian Daniel Boorstin calls this new barbarism, a perfect summary of the overall decline. That professional conservatives actually espouse this is sad to Roberts, who blasts both right and left for their nonsense.Roberts attacks the usual suspects: the internet, healthcare, political parties, inequality, misguided government, etc. But taken together, this is still just one small piece of the puzzle. Yes, socially things are changing, but Roberts does not make the case that this is new, different, exceptional or even lasting. Only the wealth and technology at our disposal have changed. This impulsive society is a tiny factor in the overall picture. That picture is the USA is in its declining phase, and may or may not outlast Man, busy making the ecosphere poisonous, barren and uninhabitable, all for its immediate comfort and wealth. That its politicians automatically act for their brand and block any effort by anyone else to achieve unity, is a symptom. That finance has taken over from manufacturing is a symptom. That people isolate themselves is a symptom. There are many more symptoms, beyond the scope of Impulse Society. Roberts’ prescriptions for this disease are uninspired.As I read, I kept thinking all Roberts’ ranting must lead to a call to arms, literally. There’s nothing like a good war to bring everyone together, work for the greater good, and restore a sense of purpose, community and selflessness. He stops short of that.I can see where someone who has never given this subject any thought might find the book a revelation, but to me it adds nothing of value to the discussion.